Gatambia v King'ora & 3 others (Civil Appeal (Application) 144 of 2024) [2024] KECA 1720 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal dismissed a bid to substitute a deceased party because the applicant relied on the wrong rule and failed to prove the substitute was the deceased's legal representative.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the applicant, invoking rule 97 of the Court of Appeal Rules, could obtain substitution of the deceased 1st respondent
- 2.Whether the intended substitute, Stephen Irungu, was established to be the personal representative of the deceased with locus standi to be joined in place of the deceased
Key legal issues
#Applicable rule for substitution upon death of a party to an appeal
Rule 97 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2010, which concerns the rights of a respondent when an appeal is withdrawn, does not govern substitution of a deceased party; the applicable provision is rule 99.
The court examined the rule invoked by the applicant and found it addressed an entirely different situation - withdrawal of an appeal - not death of a party. Rule 99 expressly provides that an appeal shall not abate on death and empowers the Court, on application by an interested person, to cause the legal representative of the deceased to be made a party in place of the deceased. The misidentification of the rule was material because the substantive requirements of rule 99 then framed the assessment.
Whether the applicant established the intended substitute's standing as personal representative
The applicant failed to discharge the burden of proof. Both parties produced rival grants of letters of administration ad litem, and the intended substitute denied the validity of the grant issued in his name, asserting it did not exist in the Succession Cause file. The applicant did not respond to that denial.
Where rival grants are placed before the Court and the person named in one grant disavows it as non-existent and possibly procured without knowledge or consent, the applicant relying on that grant must rebut the denial. The applicant filed no response to the affidavit, raised no objection to its filing or to the impugned evidence, and thus left the foundational document for substitution unproved. Satisfaction of the locus standi requirement under rule 99 therefore failed.
Legal principles established
#- On the death of a party, an appeal does not abate and the correct procedural route is rule 99, under which the legal representative of the deceased is made a party in place of the deceased upon application by an interested person; rule 97 does not apply.
- An applicant seeking substitution of a deceased party must establish that the intended substitute is a personal representative of the deceased by grant of letters of administration, or a close family member such as a spouse or child, and bears the burden of proving this.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 14th December 2023 seeking substitution of Stephen Irungu for the deceased 1st respondent was declined and dismissed
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 99 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2010 (Death of party to appeal) - the applicant having erroneously invoked rule 97
Relief refused
#Substitution of Stephen Irungu for the deceased 1st respondent Duncan Kamau
The applicant failed to discharge the burden of establishing that the intended substitute was a personal representative of the deceased or had locus standi; the grant relied on was denied by the intended substitute himself and the applicant did not rebut that denial
Costs of the application
No costs order was pronounced; the only costs sought were costs of the application, which fell away with the dismissal
Costs
No costs order was made; the application was simply dismissed without any order as to costs.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
An appeal shall not abate on the death of the appellant or the respondent but the Court shall, on the application of any interested person, cause the legal representative of the deceased to be made a party in place of the deceased.
the applicant needs to establish that the intended substitute is a personal representative of the deceased through grant of letters of administration, or for reason of being a close family member like a spouse or child.
I am not satisfied that the applicant discharged his burden to establish that the intended substitute of the deceased respondent was a personal representative of the deceased or had locus standi to substitute him.
The result is that the application is declined and accordingly dismissed.
Issues in the judgment
#The supporting affidavit of the intended substitute is undated as to year - the judgment records the date incompletely
The deceased 1st respondent is named inconsistently within the judgment - 'Duncan Irungu Gatambia' in the heading and 'Duncan Kamau' in the notice of motion
The judgment is delivered by a single Judge of Appeal at Nyeri with no coram of the full Court; the single-judge determination of a substitution application is recorded without explanation of the single-justice jurisdiction
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Gatambia v King'ora & 3 others (Civil Appeal (Application) 144 of 2024) [2024] KECA 1720 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2024/1720/eng@2024-11-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.